> >"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.
> >
> >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,

You are certainly using a broad brush when you consider a person eating a
Big Mac responsible for bringing a steer into existence.

> and he's being generous with "does not confer unqualified
> grace upon".

Why is that being generous, and to whom?

> His point is that no one or nothing gets any moral points for
> contributing to any life regardless of quality, imo.

Correct, when we discover the secret of life and begin to create animals
from scratch I will revisit the issue, but for now, all we do is rearrange
the deck chairs on the Titanic.

> But not included in this
> is his belief that people can lose moral points (or whatever) for
contributing
> to lives of suffering...

If a person *contributes to* suffering in some avoidable way, then he is
culpable. Certainly a rapist *ought to be* responsible for financially
supporting the children he forces women to bear.

> >> 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,

You mean taking credit for them as you scarf down your chicken legs.

> 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 rapist is *responsible* for a horrible, violent act and any negative
consequences of that act. He is due NO credit of any kind for any positive
outcome.

A person who eats chicken bears responsibilty for the suffering of the
chicken but gets no credit for the fact that the chicken "got to experience
life".