<dh@.> wrote
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:20:18 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> I challenge any/all of you to explain why we should not give
>>> livestock lives as much consideration as their deaths
>>
>>We do give their lives consideration [it's called animal welfare]
>
> Then I'm free to encourage people to do so, even though
> you have been maniacally opposing the suggestion for years.

I've never opposed you advocating animal welfare, I oppose your
"considering" that because some livestock animals you eat may have lived
acceptable lives that you are entitled to feel pride that they "experienced
life", and that thusly you have a valid argument against veganism. This
so-called argument, aptly dubbed "The Logic of the Larder" is two-bit
sophistry.

Decent lives is something we *owe* to animals we use as livestock, anything
less than that is arguably immoral. If you pay a debt you owe, you are only
even, you have not done better than the person who did not borrow anything.
Likewise by treating livestock properly we only pay them a debt we owe them,
we are not doing anything better than vegans who do not take and use those
animals' lives in the first place. That is the crux of why your "argument"
fails.