On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:27:56 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>
>> See if you and some students can calculate how many more
>> animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
>> if humans did not.
>
>Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine,

Close enough would be close enough.

>besides, the
>sheer number of animals who "experience life" is not important to anyone
>with half a clue.

Maybe billions makes no difference than hundreds to people
with half a clue, but it does to people with more than half.

>What matters to people of good faith

Good faith in what?

>is that animals who are raised by humans are well treated,

Some of us can consider that as well as how many experience
decent lives of possitive value.

>and that our actions do not cause undue harm to the environment.

Some people can consider all that stuff. Others of you
apparently can't. As always: If you think your lack of
consideration makes you somehow ethically superior, just
try explaining how. Instead of trying to sneak out if it
like you always do, why won't you just try explaining
how you think you're superior? I know you can't--none
of you ever could--but it sure would be fun to watch
you try.