<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:48:15 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 11:32:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>The LoL requires that you look at the lives of lifestock
>>>
>>> and also that "their life is a fairly happy one." - Salt
>>>
>>> That much alone is more than you'll ever be able to appreciate or be
>>> honest enough to acknowledge, as I have already correctly pointed out.
>>
>>You don't know if the lives of the animals you eat are "fairly happy" or
>>not. How can you base your philosophy on something you give no definition
>>for and have no knowledge of?
>
> It couldn't matter to you, because it could have no significance to you
> regardless of why it does to anyone else. You're pretending to try to
> think
> about an aspect of the situation that admittedly could never have any
> meaning
> to you. Not only can you not appreciate it, but you don't think anyone
> should
> ever even bring it up....not Salt....not me...no one. So why do you try to
> pretend
> that you have some interest in a subject that you're maniacally opposed to
> seeing anyone even mention?

Answer the question. How can you base your philosophy on something you give
no definition for and have no knowledge of?