On May 31, 10:52 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:33:16 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote
> >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Goo wrote:
>
> >>>The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> >>>to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product
>
> >> And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
> >> the animals themselves should also always be given
> >> much consideration.
>
> >No, the welfare of the animals should be given consideration, not "the
> >lives".

*EXACTLY* right.


>
> In order to consider whether or not it is cruel to *the animals*
> for them the be raised for food, their lives

NO. There is zero reason to give "their lives" any consideration. Of
course, what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
and that's just wrong. You will never persuade anyone of that. The
*welfare* of their lives, if the lives occur, is important; "their
lives", as something that should be given even a moment's
consideration before the lives occur, are not important.

You'll never get there, ****wit, no matter how much bullshit you spew
and how much wasted time you put into it: you will never persuade
anyone that livestock "ought" to exist out of any consideration of
their lives.