Would you like to be eaten?
in [Vegetarian]
|
From: Martin Willett on 25 Dec 2005 13:36 Dutch wrote: > "Martin Willett" <mwillett.org(a)invalid.invalid> wrote > >>ant and dec wrote: > > >>>But not much respect for the pig? >> >>If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As long as most >>of their life is happy and content it must surely better to live and die >>than not to. >> >>Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it there, so >>don't bother pointing it out. > > > I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said up to > now, but that is a fallacy. You cannot compare living and dying to *not* > living, since never being born, never existing is not a real state. This is > called "The Logic of the Larder" and there is one fruitcake here who has > already replied to you who makes it his life's work to promote this idea. > > http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.pdf > There, in brief, is the key to the whole matter. > The fallacy lies in the confusion of thought which attempts to > compare existence with non-existence. A person who is already in existence > may feel that he > would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the terra firma of > existence to argue > from; the moment he begins to argue as if from the abyss of the > non-existent, he talks > nonsense, by predicating good or evil, happiness or unhappiness, of that of > which we can > predicate nothing. > > When, therefore, we talk of "bringing a being," as we vaguely express it, > "into the world," we > cannot claim from that being any gratitude for our action, or drive a > bargain with him, and a > very shabby one, on that account; nor can our duties to him be evaded by any > such quibble, in > which the wish is so obviously father to the thought. Nor, in this > connection, is it necessary to > enter on the question of ante-natal existence, because, if such existence > there be, we have no > reason for assuming that it is less happy than the present existence; and > thus equally the > argument falls to the ground. It is absurd to compare a supposed > preexistence, or non- > existence, with actual individual life as known to us here. All reasoning > based on such > comparison must necessarily be false, and will lead to grotesque > conclusions. > > Do you start your reasoning from first principles and work upwards to conclusions and lifestyle choices that might come as a surprise you or do you work backwards from the practical policy stances you are most comfortable with and in the process discover what your principles "must have been"? Do you regard lying to yourself as a form of sin? -- Martin Willett http://mwillett.org
From: dh on 25 Dec 2005 14:05 On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 01:38:45 GMT, "Dutch" <no(a)email.com> wrote: > >"Martin Willett" <mwillett.org(a)invalid.invalid> wrote >> ant and dec wrote: > >>> But not much respect for the pig? >> >> If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As long as most >> of their life is happy and content it must surely better to live and die >> than not to. >> >> Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it there, so >> don't bother pointing it out. > >I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said up to >now, but Now he has suggested that something could be ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of domestic animals, so of course YOU/"ARAs" are getting another dose of cognitive dissonance. >that is a fallacy. You cannot compare living and dying to *not* >living, since never being born, never existing is not a real state. This is >called "The Logic of the Larder" Other than YOU/"ARAs", who else calls considering farm animals' lives The Logic of the Larder? Of course when I see Logic of the Larder, I understand what you're really referring to is your hero Salt's Logic of the Fantastic "AR" Talking Pig, and nothing else. I also understand that there are no such pigs, and most likely never will be. There are billions of farm animals' lives to consider however, for those of us able to consider them. >and there is one fruitcake here who has >already replied to you who makes it his life's work to promote this idea. It's just something I've been doing because I hate the mental restrictions YOU/"ARAs" would impose on everyone if you could, but I doubt that I've made even half as many posts promoting consideration of the animals' lives as YOU/"ARAs" have made opposing the suggestion. Goo alone has probably made far more than twice as many posts opposing the suggestion as I've made encouraging it. >http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.pdf >There, in brief, is the key to the whole matter. >The fallacy lies in the confusion of thought which attempts to >compare existence with non-existence. A person who is already in existence >may feel that he >would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the terra firma of >existence to argue >from; the moment he begins to argue as if from the abyss of the >non-existent, he talks >nonsense, You pasted the fact that: _________________________________________________________ From: "Dutch" <no(a)email.com> Message-ID: <tl6u464lepm55d(a)news.supernews.com> The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? even though you continue to prove it's something you can't understand. >by predicating good or evil, happiness or unhappiness, of that of >which we can >predicate nothing. > >When, therefore, we talk of "bringing a being," as we vaguely express it, >"into the world," we Could consider Christmas...well...some of us can and others can not. >cannot claim from that being any gratitude for our action, or drive a >bargain with him, _________________________________________________________ From: "Dutch" <no(a)email.com> Message-ID: <108m9omges99fff(a)news.supernews.com> Hear that fuckwit? The pig says . . . ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >and a very shabby one, I've been asking for years what YOU/"ARAs" have to offer that is better, and what it would be better for. So far the best you've been able to say is that it would be or could be better for mice, frogs and ground hogs if we eliminate all livestock. Is it really my fault if I can't see any ethical superiority in that because YOU/"ARAs" are totally incapable of explaining it? The superiority is not obvious, which even you should be able to understand if only because of your complete inability to explain how it would be. What YOU/"ARAs" need to explain is why it would be superior to make the huge CHANGE of eliminating ALL livestock for the supposed benefit of mice, frogs and ground hogs, and whatever else is dinging around inside your hollow skull. >on that account; nor can our duties to him be evaded by any >such quibble, in >which the wish is so obviously father to the thought. Nor, in this >connection, is it necessary to >enter on the question of ante-natal existence, because, if such existence >there be, we have no >reason for assuming that it is less happy than the present existence; Which always brings us back to wondering why you pasted the fact that life could have positive value to animals, when you obviously can't understand the fact much less consider it to be signifant in regards to human influence on animals. And also brings up the question of why you pasted this when you obviously can't consider it to be signifant in regards to human influence on animals. _________________________________________________________ From: "apostate" <no(a)email.com> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 03:04:25 GMT Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals, I think that's obvious. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >and >thus equally the >argument falls to the ground. It is absurd to compare a supposed >preexistence, or non- >existence, with actual individual life as known to us here. All reasoning >based on such >comparison must necessarily be false, and will lead to grotesque >conclusions. YOU/"ARAs" promote grotesque ideas imo, like: _________________________________________________________ From: "Dutch" <no(a)email.com> Message-ID: <11kod4ekj6ji105(a)news.supernews.com> Life does not justify death ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? _________________________________________________________ From: "Dutch" <n...(a)email.com> Message-ID: <11j3bmc8f1jp16c(a)news.supernews.com> Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very existence is analagous to taking moral credit for the life of a daughter you sell onto the streets. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? You <108m9omges99fff(a)news.supernews.com> "Hear that fuckwit? The pig says, if you are set on killing me for my flesh, then so be it, just spare me the self-serving bullshit." The pig doesn't know, and you couldn't explain anything to him about it if you tried. That dishonest grotesquery is self serving to YOU/"ARAs" apparently, and it is most obviously bullshit.
From: dh on 25 Dec 2005 14:06 On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 04:29:05 -0000, Jeff Caird <professor.jc(a)knox.edu> wrote: >On 2005-12-25, dh@. <dh@> wrote: >> How about rishathra? >> > >Is that from Ringworld? > >Feffer Yes. I wondered if anyone was familiar with that. I just found out yesterday they were going to make a movie a few years ago, but it didn't work out for some reason dammit.
From: Dutch on 25 Dec 2005 15:00 "Martin Willett" <mwillett.org(a)invalid.invalid> wrote > Dutch wrote: >> "Martin Willett" <mwillett.org(a)invalid.invalid> wrote >> >>>ant and dec wrote: >> >> >>>>But not much respect for the pig? >>> >>>If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As long as most >>>of their life is happy and content it must surely better to live and die >>>than not to. >>> >>>Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it there, >>>so don't bother pointing it out. >> >> >> I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said up >> to now, but that is a fallacy. You cannot compare living and dying to >> *not* living, since never being born, never existing is not a real state. >> This is called "The Logic of the Larder" and there is one fruitcake here >> who has already replied to you who makes it his life's work to promote >> this idea. >> >> http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.pdf >> There, in brief, is the key to the whole matter. >> The fallacy lies in the confusion of thought which attempts to >> compare existence with non-existence. A person who is already in >> existence may feel that he >> would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the terra firma >> of existence to argue >> from; the moment he begins to argue as if from the abyss of the >> non-existent, he talks >> nonsense, by predicating good or evil, happiness or unhappiness, of that >> of which we can >> predicate nothing. >> >> When, therefore, we talk of "bringing a being," as we vaguely express it, >> "into the world," we >> cannot claim from that being any gratitude for our action, or drive a >> bargain with him, and a >> very shabby one, on that account; nor can our duties to him be evaded by >> any such quibble, in >> which the wish is so obviously father to the thought. Nor, in this >> connection, is it necessary to >> enter on the question of ante-natal existence, because, if such existence >> there be, we have no >> reason for assuming that it is less happy than the present existence; and >> thus equally the >> argument falls to the ground. It is absurd to compare a supposed >> preexistence, or non- >> existence, with actual individual life as known to us here. All reasoning >> based on such >> comparison must necessarily be false, and will lead to grotesque >> conclusions. > > Do you start your reasoning from first principles and work upwards to > conclusions and lifestyle choices that might come as a surprise you or do > you work backwards from the practical policy stances you are most > comfortable with and in the process discover what your principles "must > have been"? I think it's probably a combination, but that does not quite capture the essence of my argument here. In the current context you said about livestock, "it must surely better to live and die than not to". "Not to" implies the existence a state of *unborness*, that's where the fallacy lies. If such a state exists, then in order to call it inferior to "living and dying" we must know something about it, and I submit that we don't. If it doesn't exist then the statement cannot logically be made. As the author above says, we make such statements with "the terra firma of existence to argue from", and a very pleasant existence at that. I think that we *can* say something quite similar to your statement to summarize the morality of breeding livestock, and that is, *if* we breed animals to be food for us, and we ensure that their lives are happy and content, then no person can fairly accuse us of wrongdoing. Can you see what I am getting at? It is the "ensuring that their lives are happy and content" that contains the valid moral principle here. > Do you regard lying to yourself as a form of sin? I would have to say most likely yes, because such dishonesty would inevitably lead to unjust behaviour towards others. I would also like to add that it has been a very, very long time since someone new of your caliber has come to these groups to address these issues, I hope you decide to stay a while and share your insights.
From: Dutch on 25 Dec 2005 15:16
<dh@.> wrote > On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 01:38:45 GMT, "Dutch" <no(a)email.com> wrote: > >> >>"Martin Willett" <mwillett.org(a)invalid.invalid> wrote >>> ant and dec wrote: >> >>>> But not much respect for the pig? >>> >>> If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As long as most >>> of their life is happy and content it must surely better to live and die >>> than not to. >>> >>> Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it there, >>> so >>> don't bother pointing it out. >> >>I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said up >>to >>now, but > > Now he has suggested that something could be ethically equivalent > or superior to the elimination of domestic animals, That's got nothing to do with it dipshit. I don't dispute that *using animal products* is "ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of domestic animals" to use your awkward wording. My argument is simply examining the logic of the premise "If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all..." |