On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:03:57 -0500, Sheldon Harper > wrote:

>dh@. wrote in :
>
>> You just continue to prove that you can't understand how life could
>> have positive value to animals regardless of quality, much MUCH less
>> can you understand what it has to do with human influence on animals
>> or why it should be taken into consideration.
>
>A) Haven't you been in the fields and heard the veggies screaming,

I've been in the fields, but never heard any of that.

>"One more day, why can't you give me just one more day, PLEASE!!!!"
>while they're being harvested?
>
>B) We're meat, animals are meat, we have teeth designed to deal
>with meat.
>
>The question is simply whether that animal's life is worth more
>to it or to me.

A person can ask whatever questions he's able to think about.
If you can only think about one, it certainly doesn't limit me to that
one question as well. On top of that there's no reason to believe
that their life is worth less to them than a meal is worth to you, so
you're not even being honest when you pretend that the answer
to what you apparently consider to be the only question has any
sort of meaning to you. It doesn't.

>The last time I shot a squirrel I first asked it
>whether its life was worth more to itself or to me.

I've killed a number of animals, but have always been aware that
asking them any such question is of no use at all, so I never asked.

>The answer
>sounded an awful lot like a squeaky "ewe" so I shot it.

It didn't answer you at all. Any noise it may have made obviously
had nothing to do with any question you might have asked.

>It was
>a tasty lunch.

I can believe that. Not much meat on them though.

>Armchair philosophy will never, under any circumstances, come
>between my fork and my mouth.