On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:06:26 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 20:23:06 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>It is right to feel regret or anger if an animal is mistreated, and it is
>>>>>right to feel glad if an animal is well-treated.
>>>>
>>>> But not for the animal, only for YOU? Is that right?
>>>
>>>No, for the animal, and by association morally for the producer and the
>>>consumer.
>>
>>
>> So I can feel glad for you, and for me, that the animal got to experience
>> a decent life, as long as I don't feel any pride for anyone for causing it to
>> happen?
>
>You can feel good about a "decent" life as opposed to a
>painful life. You may not legitimately feel good about
>the animal living versus never living, which is what's
>always lurking behind your nonsense about "decent
>life".

That's all there is. An animal that would be born as a grass raised
steer isn't going to be born as a different kind of animal if it's not born
as a grass raised steer, for example. So you're not contributing to
a "decent" life over a less decent one for any animals. You're only
contributing to what they get, which is why I encourage people to
consider what they get. Why you oppose it is still a huge question.
Why do you oppose people thinking about it the way it is?

>You are not doing animals a good deed by
>causing them to live in the first place.
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Message-ID: . net>

Either farm animals "exist" in some kind of pre-conceived,
pre-born state, or they do not.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Rudy Canoza" >
Message-ID: . com>

If one believes they do, one has no
knowledge of that state of pre-existence, and one cannot rationally
consider that ending that state and beginning life constitutes an
improvement. Note that this applies EVEN WITH the very best animal
welfare conditions one might provide: they STILL might not be as good
as the "pre-existence" state was for the animals; one simply cannot
know.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
One of the few honest things you may have said is that one simply cannot
know, but now you claim that you do know. Not only that you do know,
but also--ABSURDLY!!!--to know that it's the same for all animals, regardless
of the quality of their life....that life is not of positive value for any of them.