On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 23:18:49 -0000, "ipse dixit" > wrote:

>Dutch, your attempts to sound erudite and
>profound have always made me cringe, but
>this dog's bowl of convoluted absurdity is
>your worst so far.
>
>"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>> > 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.
>
>What does all that nonsense have to do with
>Harrison's claim that some animals benefit
>from being farmed?

He's being broad and taking in everything that brings some type of
life into being, and he's being generous with "does not confer unqualified
grace upon". His point is that no one or nothing gets any moral points for
contributing to any life regardless of quality, imo. But not included in this
is his belief that people can lose moral points (or whatever) for contributing
to lives of suffering...

>> 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.
>
>What on Earth are you on about now?
>
>> Any attempt to infer a moral connection is flawed.
>
>Who's trying such a thing, what ever it is?

He's relating giving positive consideration to the decent lives of farm animals,
to the rapist causing a great person to be conceived, imo. That brings us to
question whether the rapist would lose points for producing a life of suffering...

>> The logic of the larder suffers from the same logical flaw.
>
>No, it doesn't. You're ranting about something
>you clearly haven't understood.
>
>> The raising of animals for food stands on it's own, I
>> believe it's a moral act,
>
>Way to go, Dutch. You've just made Harrison's
>argument for him again. From the top: getting
>animals to experience life is not a moral act or
>worthy of a moment's consideration. You're an
>idiot, and you've proved yet again that you do
>subscribe to Harrison's argument.
>
>> 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.
>>
>What a load of nonsense.
>