On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 22:20:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>"Jim Webster" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Dutch" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> <dh@.> asked
>>> > Why do you think we get more browny points for
>>> > applying the Logic of the Talking Pig than the Logic
>>> > of the Larder?
>>>
>>> "The Logic of the Talking Pig" instructs us to use animals as we see fit,
>>> breed them, pen them up, kill them and make them into patties, if that's
>>> what we want to do, but don't add insult to injury by proclaiming that by
>>> doing so we are doing them a favor, as "The Logic of the Larder" says we
>>> ought to do. That only diminishes us as human beings. This raises the
>>> question once again, why do you find it necessary to spread this gospel?
>>> What deep-rooted guilt you must feel.
>>>
>>
>> but who actually cares one way or another whether he feels guilt or not?
>
>Like most things, it has relevance in this context.
>
>> eat meat if you like it
>
>Right, just don't try to claim you did the animal a favour.

As yet you still haven't been able to explain why their lives shouldn't be
given as much or more consideration than their deaths. You've also proven
to have no clue how the method of husbandry determines whether or not
the life has positive or negative value to the animal.