In message , Derek
writes
>John Beardmore wrote:
>> Derek writes
>>>John Beardmore wrote:
>>>>>>>>>They do. dh@ argues, as you do, that These species (farmed
>>>>>>>>>animals) owe their very existence to domestication.,
>>>>>>>> Thats a fact, which makes it a solid argument.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, its merely a descriptive statement that contains a
>>>>>>> disputed fact,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It doesnt contain a fact at all. It contains a
>>>>>>fabricated and demonstrably false claim: that animals
>>>>>>owe anything.
>>>>>
>>>>>Youre right, of course,
>>>>
>>>>Taking owe to mean
>>>>
>>>> be indebted to, in an abstract or intellectual sense
>>>>
>>>>it doesnt strike me as a particularly outrageous statement.
>>>
>>>Animals arent indebted to you or the farming industry.
>>
>>Depends what you mean by indebted.
>
>Well, you included the term to define owe,
No - some other poster made the statement These species (farmed
animals) owe their very existence to domestication.
> time-waster.
More pointless insults !
>>>>Everybody
>>>>will understand that these are not wild animals, and have been bread by
>>>>man.
>>>
>>>Those circumstances do not put animals in your debt.
>>
>>Again, it depends what you mean by it. Clearly the dont owe you hard
>>currency, equally clearly, they wouldnt be there at all if they were
>>not to be consumed.
>
>They dont owe you anything. They are not indebted to you.
Well, thats not a concept they can understand and we can debate.
>>Want to play pointless semantic games ?
>
>Whenever youre ready,
Well, Im ready any time, but Im not expecting you to achieve anything
by it.
> loser.
More pointless insults !
>>>>No doubt you can manipulate it for some end or other though.
>>>
>>>Thats your goal, not mine.
>>
>>So you say.
>
>So Ive shown below this line.
Well - well see.
>>> You want to manipulate these
>>>circumstances to give the impression that, because people
>>>farm animals, animals are indebted to people who can then
>>>rightly collect whats due by having them slaughtered to eat.
>>
>>I can understand that argument,
>
>Its an absurd argument.
So you assert...
>>though its not one Ive ever advanced.
>
>You hold the belief that animals owe you their lives because
>it was your diet on them that bought them into existence.
Dont tell me what beliefs I hold. Ill make my mind up about that
thanks.
>Also, just a few lines up you wrote, clearly, they wouldnt
>be there at all if they were not to be consumed.
Well, it is true.
>That is the logic of the larder; an absurd position taken on by
>guilt-ridden meat eaters and livestock keepers in an effort to
>mitigate the wrong they know theyre doing.
Dont tell people how they feel either. I dont feel guilty at all.
The logic of the larder is an interesting idea, but I dont eat meat
because of it - I eat it because its available and I like it.
That there is some truth in the notion that animals wouldnt be kept on
farm unless there was a market for meat is undoubtedly true. That I
have thought of this as a contract is false. That you see all this as
vile sophistry or whatever I couldnt care less.
Maybe from a biological perspective the relationship between farm
animals and people can be seen as a symbiosis. I can think of
biologists who might agree with that, and other (vegetarian) ones who
wouldnt.
>>>In short, your justification for killing animals is based on the
>>>logic of the larder:
>>
>>Not really
>
>Yes, really,
Not really. Its not a thing I feel any great need to justify.
> so give up on it and ignore Harrison when he
>spams your group
Come to think of it, what the hell are you doing in my
group ? If youve got a problem with people being in each others
groups, why dont you just get lost ?
> looking for poor fools to help him here
>in a.a.e.v.
So is there no place for debate in aaev ? Cant take the heat ?
Just want a news group thats a smug temple to veganism ?
Feel its all a bit if a waste of time ?
Clue: it is !
> where hes been trashed for nearly 7 years
>over it.
That you would like me to regard something as trashed is neither here or
there.
>> I was just brought up enjoying meat, and still do.
>
>And youll use any tatty ole bit of sophism to defend
>yourself from your own critic: you.
Nonsense.
> Youve deluded
>yourself into thinking youve done animals a good
>deed by having them born, raised and humanely killed,
Well - as I said, I can see that argument.
>and you HOPE to believe that that good deed puts
>right the wrong you do in having them killed.
You have no idea what I hope, and trust me, this is very low down my
list of priorities !
> It doesnt.
>Animals dont owe you a God-damned thing.
Except perhaps their existence.
>>Cant say Ive ever bothered with this logic of the larder stuff, as
>>it seemed to me, to be based on some questionable assumptions, as early
>>as the first paragraph.
>
>Then you have no comment on it, but rest assured
>that it applies to you and your absurd position.
Well not really. If the predicating assumptions dont fit, nor does the
argument based upon them.
J/.
--
John Beardmore
Login
Search
Posted: 2006-07-04 23:44:52
![New posts [ Popular ]](images/topic_unread_hot.gif "New posts [ Popular ]"){kind=small}
![No new posts [ Popular ]](images/topic_read_hot.gif "No new posts [ Popular ]"){kind=small}
![New posts [ Locked ]](images/topic_unread_locked.gif "New posts [ Locked ]"){kind=small}
![No new posts [ Locked ]](images/topic_read_locked.gif "No new posts [ Locked ]"){kind=small}
