On Sun, 8 May 2005 12:07:29 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


dh@. wrote in message ...
On Sat, 7 May 2005 11:08:24 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

It's irrelevant. Farming an animal for food disqualifies you
from claiming a moral bonus from the fact that the animal
"experiences life".

No it doesn't.

Yes it does. The only feeling akin to morality you are
permitted to experience

LOL! That is hilarious coming from a purely selfish ass
like yours.

is gratitude towards that animal
for losing it's life for you .

You don't get to kill and eat them and
also feel smug that you 'allowed them the privilege of life'.

I can feel good that animals get to experience a decent
life

Yes, you can be happy that they have a decent life
rather than a indecent life, not that they "get to experience life".

This kind of "double-dipping" is intuitively distateful to anyone
with a moral compass, something you evidently lack.

So do you apparently, because you think you get a moral
bonus for being beyond inconsiderate, to the point that
you OPPOSE consideration of what the billions of animals
get out of the arrangement.

I vehemently oppose consideration of what animals
"get out of the arrangement". What a disgusting turn
of phrase, "the arrangement.."

And you do it for the purely
selfish reason that it disturbs you that people raise animals
for food.

No, it disturbs me that there are people that are
not satisfied to simply exploit animals for food
and other products, but demand a moral gold
star for it as well.

It disturbs the hell out of you when someone considers
the animals, because you only care about yourself.