XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian   
      
   On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 02:32:17 +0000 (UTC), Jahbulon    
   wrote:   
      
   >dh@. wrote in news:1danf7pm4vbahva7lvlm7oaea1tpb5cspk@4ax.com:   
   >   
   >>> You would not say the same about child sex abuser thinking   
   >>> of creating a baby for his own purposes, would you?   
   >>   
   >> Since livestock aren't generally sexually abused by their   
   >> farmers there's no reason to try comparing those   
   >> completely different situations as if they weren't   
   >> completely different.   
   >   
   >You don't think it's okay to eat babies just as long if you were not eating   
   >them the babies would not be born in the first place, do you?   
      
       No.   
      
   >Why should   
   >it be different for animals in the rich first world where we have more   
   >healthy alternatives?   
      
       For one thing because it's easier to give them a life of positive value   
   than   
   it would be human babies. If you can ever get that far then we can consider   
   other reasons, but if not then it's more than you're brain can comprehend like   
   it is for Rupert. Rupert claims to have a PhD in math yet he doesn't:   
      
   "believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and   
   "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert   
      
   I consider that to be a severe mental handicap for anyone, and of course   
   especially for anyone who is trying to discuss the ethics of raising animals   
   for   
   food. In fact it's such a severe mental handicap that no one in my sixth grade   
   class had any trouble understanding and appreciating the distinction when we   
   discussed it regarding human slavery. It's quite possible that a child as   
   mentally restricted as Rupert acts, would have been placed in the special ed   
   class and wouldn't be likely to ever be able to obtain a PhD.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)