dh@. wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:32:22 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>
>>>On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:06:26 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>>
>>>>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?
>>
>>Have ever even eaten grass-fed beef?
>
>
> We used to raise our own, when we had some land available. And
> you know what? No, and you still won't after I tell you, but here it is:
> It was that life or no life for the ones we raised too

And they weren't "better off" for having "got to live".
Being born and "getting to live" didn't make them
better off than they were before, because before...they
WEREN'T.


>>I didn't think so...You're a fraud.
>
>
> You don't think.

He does. He thinks lucidly and cogently. YOU don't
think, as evidenced by your insane clinging to your
wrong belief that you are doing something nice for
animals by causing them to be born and then eating them.