dh@. wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 01:38:45 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Martin Willett" > wrote
>>
>>>ant and dec wrote:
>>
>>>>But not much respect for the pig?
>>>
>>>If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As long as most
>>>of their life is happy and content it must surely better to live and die
>>>than not to.
>>>
>>>Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it there, so
>>>don't bother pointing it out.
>>
>>I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said up to
>>now, but
>
>
> Now he has suggested that something could be ethically equivalent
> or superior to the elimination of domestic animals,

No. There is no moral credit to be taken for causing
domestic animals to exist. The animals are in no way
"better off" for having come into existence.


>
>>that is a fallacy. You cannot compare living and dying to *not*
>>living, since never being born, never existing is not a real state. This is
>>called "The Logic of the Larder"
>
>
> Other than YOU/"ARAs", who else calls considering farm animals' lives
> The Logic of the Larder?

Everyone who thinks about it seriously and correctly.


>>and there is one fruitcake here who has
>>already replied to you who makes it his life's work to promote this idea.
>
>
> It's just something I've been doing because

Because you stupidly subscribe to the Illogic of the
Larder.


>
>>http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.pdf
>>There, in brief, is the key to the whole matter.
>>The fallacy lies in the confusion of thought which attempts to
>>compare existence with non-existence. A person who is already in existence
>>may feel that he
>>would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the terra firma of
>>existence to argue
>>from; the moment he begins to argue as if from the abyss of the
>>non-existent, he talks
>>nonsense,