>dh quoted Goo:
>>On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:30:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:13:55 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Humans have as much justification to kill other animals as other animals
>>>>have to kill humans and other animals Goo. Some people are capable of moving on
>>>>beyond that point and actually consider the animals themselves and what's good
>>>>and bad for them. Others of you only want to consider bad things because and
>>>>only because considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals
>>>>works against the elimination objective.
>>>
>>>Show it.
>>
>>"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>
>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>
>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>its quality of live" - Goo
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>killing them." - Goo
>>
>>"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
>>you ever wrote." - Goo
>>
>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>
>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>
>>"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>to experience life" - Goo
>>
>>"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>
>You didn't show it.

I showed that you only want to consider bad things because and only because
considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals works against the
elimination objective, Goo.