XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.pets.cats.misc, rec.pets.birds   
      
   On Sat, 7 May 2005 11:08:24 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   > wrote in message news:erpp71hc492ggf5mjj2odk3l6etf0b2vqu@4ax.com...   
   >> On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>banmilk@hotmail.com wrote:   
   >>>> Yes they can.   
   >>>> I did write that, and it's true.   
   >>>   
   >>>You write lots of shit, virtually all of it false.  You   
   >>>fucking bonehead.   
   >>   
   >>    Animals experience disappointment Goo. Almost any   
   >> child with a dog could tell you about it. It doesn't mean   
   >> that all animals can, but it does mean some of them   
   >> can. Sad you're not able to understand that.   
   >>   
   >>    One absurd "reason" you feel that life isn't worthy   
   >> of consideration for any animals, is because you don't   
   >> feel that they are capable of experiencing positive   
   >> emotions   
   >   
   >It's irrelevant. Farming an animal for food disqualifies you   
   >from claiming a moral bonus from the fact that the animal   
   >"experiences life".   
      
       No it doesn't.   
      
   >You don't get to kill and eat them and   
   >also feel smug that you 'allowed them the privilege of life'.   
      
       I can feel good that animals get to experience a decent   
   life because humans raise them for food. Even the cls.   
      
   >This kind of "double-dipping" is intuitively distateful to anyone   
   >with a moral compass, something you evidently lack.   
      
       So do you apparently, because you think you get a moral   
   bonus for being beyond inconsiderate, to the point that   
   you OPPOSE consideration of what the billions of animals   
   get out of the arrangement. And you do it for the purely   
   selfish reason that it disturbs you that people raise animals   
   for food.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)