Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:

> On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:42:15 GMT, > wrote:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
>>> On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:33:16 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>>>>>> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product
>>>>>
>>>>> And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
>>>>> the animals themselves should also always be given
>>>>> much consideration.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, the welfare of the animals should be given consideration, not "the
>>>> lives".
>>>
>>> In order to consider whether or not it is cruel to *the animals*
>>> for them the be raised for food, their lives plus the quality of their
>>> lives necessarily MUST be given consideration.
>>
>> Why? If they are not made to suffer then it's not cruel to them. "Their
>> lives", apart from the quality of those lives, is of no moral consequence.
>
> So you selfishly continue to insist

No, the selfishness is all on your side, Goo. There's nothing wrong
with being self-interested, Goo. There *is* something wrong with trying
to paint your self-interest as altruistic, when there's no altruism at all.


> Why do you think it's ethically superior not to consider what
> the animals gain?

The animals "gain" nothing, Goo. Coming into existence is not a "gain"
or "benefit" for them, Goo.



--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs