Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

> All it means is wanting the animals to exist. If someone wants the
> animals that ****wit wishes to eat to exist, then ****wit says the
> person has "consideration for their lives". If someone doesn't want
> those animals to exist, then ****wit shrieks they have "no consideration
> for their lives", and he berates them for not wanting the animals to
> exist.


He might not be expressing it convincingly,
but he appears to be sincere and
the gist of what he is trying say is LoL
that has support of several philosophers.

"The Logic of the Larder""(LL): We do animals a favor
by purchasing meat, eggs, and milk, for if we did not
purchase these products, fewer animals would exist (Stephen, 1896).
LL results from the common notion that the supply of farm animals
roughly follows the demand for their products;
and the less common notion that the world is made better off
by having more animals in existence.
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (2005) 18:
GAVERICK MATHENY and KAI M. A. CHAN
HUMAN DIETS AND ANIMAL WELFA THE ILLOGIC OF THE LARDER

It can be wrong,
but it does not appear to be nonsensical to me.
Shall we talk about LoL point by point?

--
Oxtail is not doing what he thinks he is doing here.