<dh@.> wrote
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 21:16:35 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:49:12 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in
>>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> dh explained:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Goo is admittedly too stupid
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, ****wit. I haven't "admitted" anything to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> You admittedly don't understand how life could have positive value
>>>>> for any farm animals, regardless of quality.
>>>>
>>>>You don't understand that no matter how good their lives might be, as a
>>>>consumer of them you cannot do any better than repay them for their
>>>>sacrifice. That is the BEST you can do, and by acting as you do,
>>>>asserting
>>>>arbitrarily that *some of them have positive lives*
>>>
>>> Amusingly, you asserted it too.
>>
>>Sure, why not? It's probably true, although as it is the statement is too
>>vague to be meaningful.
>>
>>> The difference is that I do understand it,
>>> but you can not.
>>
>>The difference is that unlike me, and the rest of the sane people in the
>>world, you think that since some animals might have "positive experiences"
>>that means that you have done something good and admirable by consuming
>>animal products.
>
> Not necessarily admirable, but I can consider it a good thing to
> contribute
> to life of positive value, even for livestock, even though you can't.

You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products. It's as simple as that,
The Logic of the Larder is self-serving sophistry.

[..]