On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:56:54 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:

>dh@. lied:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:27:03 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>><dh@.> lied
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I understand exactly what you're doing,
>>>>
>>>> No, not what I'm doing
>
>He understands exactly what you're doing. We all do.
>You're trying a cheap, sophomoric trick. You've been
>trying it for six years. You've failed to complete it
>for six years. You will always fail at it.

I'm trying to get YOU/"ARAs" to give the animals'
lives as much or more consideration than their deaths.
Since you can't come up with any real opposition to
the suggestion, but you hate it because it suggests
that some alternative(s) might be ethically equivalent
or superior to the elimination of livestock, you invent
fantasies and restrictions that support what YOU/"ARAs"
want people to believe.

>>>>or what you're doing, unless you can understand
>>>>what I explained above...which sure doesn't seem likely after all these
>>>>years.
>>>
>>>I understand it. The point you made above doesn't change anything, you are
>>>still trying to extract some moral credit from that act of combining egg and
>>>sperm, and it just doesn't work. It doesn't deserve any.
>>
>>
>> It provides life for an animal.
>
>That is morally MEANINGLESS. The very fact you state
>it as if it's something important *proves* that Dutch
>is correct: you are trying to claim some moral credit
>for having done something good. You have NOT done
>something good by causing the animal to live. You earn
>no moral credit.

Dutch has amusingly pretended to believe it's a moral
bonus to provide a decent life over a bad one, but there
is no such alternative. You contribute to the lives they get,
or you don't, and since you think that's meaningless you
must think it doesn't matter what type of lives people
contribute to because you feel it " is morally MEANINGLESS".