>> Given that at the end of the process they're both dead, the amount of pain felt ends up being irrelevant. If I understand this correctly, you were saying th

>> Given that at the end of the process they're both dead, the amount of pain felt ends up being irrelevant. If I understand this correctly, you were saying that the animals' deaths essentially render their suffering irrelevant. It seems to logically follow that if everything is dead "at the end of the process" then there's no suffering that we need ever care about. I don't honestly think you hold that position, but it's at least consistent with your earlier post, so it'd be nice to know where your logic breaks from mine.