XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.global-warming   
      
   On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 19:08:13 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >"Jack"  wrote in message   
   >news:592a12bc-914a-4393-9cb7-3f4f81d5ef51@a9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...   
   >On Apr 8, 8:51 pm, John Stafford  wrote:   
   >> I would like to know if any of these "animals for slaughter are well   
   >> off" people would agree that the animals are of vastly sub-human   
   >> intelligence, so if/when a human being goes to the same place, then why   
   >> don't we just add them to the food supply?   
   >   
   >Could you rephrase that.   
   >   
   >It's a question related to the argument from marginal cases, but the key   
   >point here is that animals are not "better off" or "well off" due to being   
   >raised for food.   
      
       As yet you still haven't explained what they "taught" you in   
   grade school that allows you to say whether they ever are or not.   
      
   >That asinine argument is called "The Logic of the Larder".   
      
       As far as we know it's only called that by misnomer addicts.   
   Other people refer to it as taking the animals we're discussing   
   into consideration, or something similar to that.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)