On 4/13/2010 8:46 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 19:49:52 -0700, > wrote:
>
>>
>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 19:08:13 -0700, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> On Apr 8, 8:51 pm, John > 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.
>
> It's not that I don't understand what you tell me,

Yes, that's exactly the problem.


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

That's what it's called.


>> That is an outright lie, most of the opponents of the LoL have been avowed
>> antis.
>
> I believe that's a lie.

You know it isn't a lie. When you say you believe it's a lie, you're lying.


>>> Other people refer to it as taking the animals we're discussing
>>> into consideration, or something similar to that.
>>
>> Morons like you say that.
>
> Taking the animals we're discussing into consideration is
> exactly that

You give them no consideration. That's only your smokescreen.