On Tue, 12 May 2009 23:13:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>On Tue, 12 May 2009 10:01:24 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 6 May 2009 23:30:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> Considering the animals' lives is a necessary part of
>>>> evaluating whether or not it's cruel TO THEM for humans
>>>> to raise them for food. What you need to do is explain
>>>> why you think it's ethically superior for people to REFUSE
>>>> to take that aspect into consideration. GO:
>>>
>>>If we were evaluating whether or not it was cruel to humans to raise them
>>>for food, would it be necessary to "consider their lives"?
>>
>> Of course it would.
>>
>>>Why or why not?
>>
>> Because that's the most significant aspect of trying to
>>make such an evaluation.
>
>In that case since a human life is the most profoundly precious gift
>imaginable how can we possibly have decided that it is wrong?

More because it would work against the interests of
society in general than because of what it would do
to the humans, but the purity of your selfishness won't
allow you to understand how that could be the case.

>You *do* realize that its wrong don't you?

I can consider the whole thing in what few ways
you can and also in ways you can not, that's for sure.