> wrote in message
...
> 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?

It's survival, it's moral to act on one's own behalf in the pursuit of
survival, which includes not just bare existence, but thriving and gaining
the most one can out of life.

> >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.

Rape "provides life" for many people, it's still one of the violent,
abhorrent crimes in existence, nonetheless.

> Some are good
> and some are not. In all this time still no one has said why we should
> not consider both.

Because the very life itself is morally disconnected from the person who
committed the act which contributed to the life. The logic of the larder
attempts to make a connection, Salt eloquently explains why the attempt
fails.

> To make it even weirder--to me--you want people
> to consider raising animals for food a moral act,

Moral meaning "not immoral", justifiable, not admirable.

> but not if we consider
> that it provides decent lives for lots of animals.

Right, because that "consideration" has no constructive purpose whatever,
except unecessary self-justification, and to open a slippery slope to all
sorts of horrid justifications, such as the justifying of breeding children
as sex slaves. "I only sell off the female ones, so some of my children have
decent lives, and the lives they get are better than no life at all."

> You apparently can't
> understand why that seems weird as hell to me, but it does.

You're right about that, I can't plumb the depths of your conscience, and
you apparently can't see what everyone else can see about this logic of
yours. It's self-serving, circular sophistry.