On Sat, 7 May 2005 11:08:24 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


dh@. wrote in message ...
On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

wrote:
Yes they can.
I did write that, and it's true.

You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
****ing bonehead.

Animals experience disappointment Goo. Almost any
child with a dog could tell you about it. It doesn't mean
that all animals can, but it does mean some of them
can. Sad you're not able to understand that.

One absurd "reason" you feel that life isn't worthy
of consideration for any animals, is because you don't
feel that they are capable of experiencing positive
emotions

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.

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 because humans raise them for food. Even the cls.

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