On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:09:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:08:01 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>"Rupert" > wrote in message
groups.com...
>>>>
>>>> I am good at assessing the strength of an
>>>> argument.
>>>
>>>No you aren't, you don't even listen to my arguments, you repeat them back
>>>to me in terms that reveal your bias, discarding the essence of my
>>>aguments.
>>
>> Have you "explained" to him why you believe we should think of child
>> prostitution and raising animals for food in the same way yet?
>
>I don't have to, he probably understands the analogy. You're the only one I
>know of that doesn't. Since you brought it up I will explain it again.
>
>The analogy is intended to discover if in judging if an action is good/bad,
>right/wrong if the recipient of that act "getting to exerience life" is ever
>a relevant factor. Obviously the contexts that apply are those which produce
>or help to produce animal life. One of those contexts is having children,
>breeding of pets would be another, in this case it is the breeding of
>livestock. The basic criticism requiring a response is that it is wrong to
>kill these livestock animals for food. Can we use the argument that "they
>only get to experience life because of us" to respond to that criticism?

Of course.

>It's tempting, but does it hold up

LOL! I mean: Of course.

>or is it self-serving and circular?

That's a different issue. No matter how loud you sing or how you
dance around it, the fact will always remain that the animals are not
cheated out of longer lives, better lives, or anything like that because
they are raised to be eaten.

>One
>of the ways we can examine the response is to attempt to apply it in other
>contexts.

No. That's changing the subject to something completely different,
as I point out when you change the subject to something completely
different.

>Lets say we are criticized for our treatment of our children, can
>we answer, "they only get to experience life because of me" or is that an
>evasion that fails to answer the accusation?

It depends on whether or not the children were deliberately raised
ONLY to be treated that way. Some of us have decided IN ADVANCE
that it's okay to raise and kill animals for food. So if you're going to
make up some grotesquery about children as you want so badly to
do, you need to come up with something that people have decided
IN ADVANCE is okay to raise them for. Using them as prostitutes
is abusive to the children. In contrast to that, I supporting giving
the animals LIVES OF POSITIVE VALUE. You are--as always--trying
to compare things which are not similar because that's ALL you can
do. You can't think of anything else that is like the situation of raising
animals for food, much as you obviously wish that you could.