"Dutch" is even fooled by himself! :-)
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On 10 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:
>
>>It's lousier than your usual lousy, worthless answer.
>
> Can you explain how your boy's paste is not correct:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: "Dutch" >
> Message-ID: >
>
> The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
> has positive or negative value to the animal.
> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
That is accurate and relevant *if and only if* the animals are living.
Deciding to *not* raise livestock is NOT a moral consideration. Need I point
out that an animal cannot be abused or killed if it is never born?
> When not, can you explain why we should disregard the
> fact he mistakenly pasted when we consider the deaths:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: Goo
> Message-ID: .net>
>
> the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
> consideration, and gets it.
> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
> of billions of animals?
Whatever number.
|