<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 19:08:13 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jack" > wrote in message
...
>>On Apr 8, 8:51 pm, John Stafford > wrote:
>>> I would like to know if any of these "animals for slaughter are well
>>> off" people would agree that the animals are of vastly sub-human
>>> intelligence, so if/when a human being goes to the same place, then why
>>> don't we just add them to the food supply?
>>
>>Could you rephrase that.
>>
>>It's a question related to the argument from marginal cases, but the key
>>point here is that animals are not "better off" or "well off" due to being
>>raised for food.
>
> As yet you still haven't explained what they "taught" you in
> grade school that allows you to say whether they ever are or not.

I have explained it to you more times than I can count, but as when I talk
to my dog, I have learned that you are not capable of understanding the
meaning of the words.


>>That asinine argument is called "The Logic of the Larder".
>
> As far as we know it's only called that by misnomer addicts.

That is an outright lie, most of the opponents of the LoL have been avowed
antis.

> Other people refer to it as taking the animals we're discussing
> into consideration, or something similar to that.

Morons like you say that.