****wit David Harrison lied:

> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:01:15 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison lied:
>>
>>>On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:03:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>****wit David Harrison lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I'm aware that the lives of livestock should be given as
>>>>>much or more consideration than their deaths

The fact of their lives occuring at all deserves no
moral consideration. They do not "benefit" by "getting
to experience life".


>>>>
>>>>Why should the deaths of livestock be given any consideration?
>>
>>I asked for *your* opinion ****wit, not the opinions of other people. Why
>>should the deaths of livestock be given any consideration?
>
>
> Because some of them are of positive value for one thing...one thing
> which you obviously can't understand.

1. You don't know that their lives are of positive value
TO THEM. Seeing them live a certain way is of
positive value to YOU.

2. Coming into existence is NOT A BENEFIT to them.


>>I would have
>>thought that you'd have an answer ready for that one.
>
>
> You answered it youself years ago. It's still hard to believe you're too
> stupid to understand it

There is nothing you understand that he doesn't. There
is nothing you understand that I don't. We both
understand far more than you, about every relevant
aspect of using animals.

Answer the question you've been avoiding, ****wit: WHY
do you obsess - it really is warped obsession - over
livestock "getting to experience life"?