All it means is wanting the animals to exist. If someone wants the
animals that ****wit wishes to eat to exist, then ****wit says the
person has "consideration for their lives". If someone doesn't want
those animals to exist, then ****wit shrieks they have "no consideration
for their lives", and he berates them for not wanting the animals to
exist.

It's ****witted tripe; nothing more.

Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

All it means is wanting the animals to exist. If someone wants the
animals that ****wit wishes to eat to exist, then ****wit says the
person has "consideration for their lives". If someone doesn't want
those animals to exist, then ****wit shrieks they have "no consideration
for their lives", and he berates them for not wanting the animals to
exist.


He might not be expressing it convincingly,
but he appears to be sincere and
the gist of what he is trying say is LoL
that has support of several philosophers.

"The Logic of the Larder""(LL): We do animals a favor
by purchasing meat, eggs, and milk, for if we did not
purchase these products, fewer animals would exist (Stephen, 1896).
LL results from the common notion that the supply of farm animals
roughly follows the demand for their products;
and the less common notion that the world is made better off
by having more animals in existence.
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (2005) 18:
GAVERICK MATHENY and KAI M. A. CHAN
HUMAN DIETS AND ANIMAL WELFA THE ILLOGIC OF THE LARDER

It can be wrong,
but it does not appear to be nonsensical to me.
Shall we talk about LoL point by point?

--
Oxtail is not doing what he thinks he is doing here.

On 6/24/2010 8:58 AM, oxtail wrote:
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

All it means is wanting the animals to exist. If someone wants the
animals that ****wit wishes to eat to exist, then ****wit says the
person has "consideration for their lives". If someone doesn't want
those animals to exist, then ****wit shrieks they have "no consideration
for their lives", and he berates them for not wanting the animals to
exist.


He might not be expressing it convincingly,

You can say that again. Never mind, I will: He isn't presenting it
convincingly.


but he appears to be sincere

I think not. He blabbers quite often about animal welfare, but he has
written numerous things over the years indicating he doesn't really care
about animal welfare. I'll post those separately.



the gist of what he is trying say is LoL
that has support of several philosophers.

"The Logic of the Larder""(LL): We do animals a favor
by purchasing meat, eggs, and milk, for if we did not
purchase these products, fewer animals would exist (Stephen, 1896).
LL results from the common notion that the supply of farm animals
roughly follows the demand for their products;
and the less common notion that the world is made better off
by having more animals in existence.
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (2005) 18:
GAVERICK MATHENY and KAI M. A. CHAN
HUMAN DIETS AND ANIMAL WELFA THE ILLOGIC OF THE LARDER

Matheny is *disputing* the LoL, you idiot.


It can be wrong,
but it does not appear to be nonsensical to me.

It is nonsensical. Coming into existence is not a benefit. The
fundamental premise of LoL is that coming into existence *is* a benefit,
and clearly it is not. A benefit is something that improves the welfare
of the beneficiary, and clearly existence does not improve an entity's
welfare - it establishes it. If I take some wood and build a table, I
have not "improved" a table. It is immaterial if you think I have
"improved" the wood; the entity that has come into existence is the
table, and it was not improved upon by being built.

LoL is nonsense.

Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

On 6/24/2010 8:58 AM, oxtail wrote:
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

All it means is wanting the animals to exist. If someone wants the
animals that ****wit wishes to eat to exist, then ****wit says the
person has "consideration for their lives". If someone doesn't want
those animals to exist, then ****wit shrieks they have "no
consideration for their lives", and he berates them for not wanting
the animals to exist.


He might not be expressing it convincingly,

You can say that again. Never mind, I will: He isn't presenting it
convincingly.


but he appears to be sincere

I think not. He blabbers quite often about animal welfare, but he has
written numerous things over the years indicating he doesn't really care
about animal welfare. I'll post those separately.



the gist of what he is trying say is LoL that has support of several
philosophers.

"The Logic of the Larder""(LL): We do animals a favor by purchasing
meat, eggs, and milk, for if we did not purchase these products,
fewer animals would exist (Stephen, 1896). LL results from the
common notion that the supply of farm animals roughly follows the
demand for their products; and the less common notion that the world
is made better off by having more animals in existence.
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (2005) 18: GAVERICK
MATHENY and KAI M. A. CHAN
HUMAN DIETS AND ANIMAL WELFA THE ILLOGIC OF THE LARDER

Matheny is *disputing* the LoL, you idiot.


It can be wrong,
but it does not appear to be nonsensical to me.

It is nonsensical. Coming into existence is not a benefit. The
fundamental premise of LoL is that coming into existence *is* a benefit,
and clearly it is not. A benefit is something that improves the welfare
of the beneficiary, and clearly existence does not improve an entity's
welfare - it establishes it. If I take some wood and build a table, I
have not "improved" a table. It is immaterial if you think I have
"improved" the wood; the entity that has come into existence is the
table, and it was not improved upon by being built.

LoL is nonsense.


That's just your opinion.
Actually the "coming into existence" part is
most interesting to me.
I don't care about your clueless opinion.
I don't think even the authors of the article are
fully qualified for the task at hand.
Do you know of any famous thinker who thinks
that "the world is" NOT "made better off
by having more animals in existence"?

Is the world better off for having more animals?

First thing first:
what kind of question is this?
Factual?
Legal?
Ethical?
Ontological?
Religious?
Buddhist?
Zen?

--
Oxtail is not doing what he thinks he is doing here.

On 6/24/2010 11:18 AM, oxtail wrote:
[...]

No, the world is not better off. The world does not have a welfare.

Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

On 6/24/2010 11:18 AM, oxtail wrote:
[...]

No, the world is not better off. The world does not have a welfare.


I didn't ask for your opinion.
Your uneducated guess is almost irrelevant.
I asked whether you know of any famous thinkers
who say that the world is not better off
just because there are more animals in it.
There must be some.
Do you know of any?

--
Oxtail is not doing what he thinks he is doing here.

On 6/24/2010 11:59 AM, oxtail wrote:
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

On 6/24/2010 11:18 AM, oxtail wrote:
[...]

No, the world is not better off. The world does not have a welfare.


I didn't ask for your opinion.

I didn't give you an opinion.

Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

On 6/24/2010 11:59 AM, oxtail wrote:
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

On 6/24/2010 11:18 AM, oxtail wrote:
[...]

No, the world is not better off. The world does not have a welfare.


I didn't ask for your opinion.

I didn't give you an opinion.


Are they factual statements?
If so, are they falsifiable?

--
Oxtail is not doing what he thinks he is doing here.

On 6/24/2010 12:11 PM, oxtail wrote:
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

On 6/24/2010 11:59 AM, oxtail wrote:
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

On 6/24/2010 11:18 AM, oxtail wrote:
[...]

No, the world is not better off. The world does not have a welfare.


I didn't ask for your opinion.

I didn't give you an opinion.


Are they factual statements?

Yes.


If so, are they falsifiable?

Have a go at it.

Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

On 6/24/2010 12:11 PM, oxtail wrote:
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

On 6/24/2010 11:59 AM, oxtail wrote:
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

On 6/24/2010 11:18 AM, oxtail wrote:
[...]

No, the world is not better off. The world does not have a welfare.


I didn't ask for your opinion.

I didn't give you an opinion.


Are they factual statements?

Yes.


If so, are they falsifiable?

Have a go at it.


Care to show us how?
They are your statements, after all.

--
Oxtail is not doing what he thinks he is doing here.