On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:25:53 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

> wrote
>[..]
>
>> There are a few people who understand that some farm animals
>> benefit from farming and that some don't, as it has been for thousands
>> of years. It's hard to believe that so many of YOU are too stupid to
>> understand such an obvious fact, but you prove it to be the case
>> over and over again.
>
>Life *is* a wonderous thing, no doubt, but it's glory does not confer
>unqualified grace upon anyone and everyone remotely connected to it. A
>rapist may cause a great person to be conceived, yet that despicable act of
>violence is_not tempered one iota by that person's life. Any attempt to
>infer a moral connection is flawed. The logic of the larder suffers from the
>same logical flaw. The raising of animals for food stands on it's own, I
>believe it's a moral act,

What do you believe is moral about it?

>others may disagree, but the fact that it may
>result in a life that has some form of some value does not change the nature
>of the act.

It results in life for billions of animals none the less. Some are good
and some are not. In all this time still no one has said why we should
not consider both. To make it even weirder--to me--you want people
to consider raising animals for food a moral act, but not if we consider
that it provides decent lives for lots of animals. You apparently can't
understand why that seems weird as hell to me, but it does.