On 6/30/2010 12:27 PM, bundling snowfalls wrote:
On 1/07/2010 2:43 AM, Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
On 6/30/2010 11:00 AM, bundling snowfalls wrote:
On 1/07/2010 1:56 AM, oxtail wrote:
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

A benefit is something that improves the welfare of an entity.
Prior to
its existence, there is no entity and thus no welfare, so coming into
existence cannot improve an entity's welfare.

We do not "give the gift of life" to livestock animals by breeding
them
into existence; we do not do them any "favor". We facilitate their
existence, but that existence is not a gift or benefit to them. No
matter how pleasant their lives might be once they do exist, existence
itself is not a benefit to them.

No harm would be inflicted on any animals if, suddenly and for
whatever
reason, we were to stop breeding livestock animals into existence. The
fact that "billions of farm animals" would thereby never exist would
have no moral meaning to any animals. There would not be any lack of
consideration shown.


If you are not smart enough
to be concerned about the welfare
of sentient beings to be born in the future,
you have no business to worry
about what other people do or think.


of course the welfare matters you idiot.
it's about the existence of them in future.
in particular, existence being bred for meat.

It's hard to believe this ****flaps 'oxtail' either doesn't get it, or
thinks he can obscure the issue as part of his ****witted playing of the
"zen game".

if he can't get that he
doesn't deserve to be taken
seriously by other people.

No one takes him seriously. He's an amusement, and not much of one at
that; kind of a guilt-inducing indulgence to cuff him around.