dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:48:14 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>There is no moral good *to the animal* that results
>>from it being born at all.
>
> You can't comprehend how life could have positive value to
> an animal

That is a nonsensical response to what I wrote. I
said, there is no moral good *to the animal* that
results from it being born. As you always have, you
keep trying to confuse, deliberately, two entirely
separate considerations.