population ethics and the cow that lived a good life

[Jebus]

If you think the sum total of life A: cow suffering for its entire existence until being killed painlessly and unaware is somehow better than sum total of life B: cow being happy for its entire existence then being killed painlessly and unaware, then please go ahead and justify that claim.

Seriously?

And please explain how "The killing itself is probably the least bad part of a slaughter house as the animals are probably suicidal already. " is relevant when I specifically said the cow lived a life worth living.

Look again at my original response:

The happier the cow, the more negative the killing becomes. The killing itself is probably the least bad part of a slaughter house as the animals are probably suicidal already. It somewhat evens out, consequentially speaking.

What exactly do you think the last sentence meant? Evens out with what??? I don't see any way a reasonably intelligent person could not read this as follows:

The act of killing a cow with a "life worth living" is actually worse than the act of killing a cow with a "life not worth living" as the happy cow has more to lose.

Hence, the killing of a happy cow is not morally justified.

Your initial post was grammatically clear so I don't see how I possibly could have misinterpreted it. If I did, you have not done a very good job at clarifying it.

You didn't answer the original hypothetical and then you started talking about an entirely different hypothetical.

You never demonstrated comprehension of the question asked. You said "Given the short life, the tragic death which probably involved a great deal of fear, the sorrow experienced by the cow's friends, I think it is safe to conclude that it would have been better if the cow had never lived at all". How the fuck is that relevant to anything I said?

Although not relevant to the original question, it is relevant to the topic at hand. Meat eaters often make the claim that the breeding of farm animals is a morally good thing as they wouldn't have been born had it not been for meat consumption. As I had already sufficiently replied to your original question (as I understood it), I thought I could point this out as a vast majority of people are of a different opinion. As you identified this comment as a motte (although over 90% of people would find it a weak position) you would also have to explain how it relates to my first comment.

The Motte and bailey would be you, instead of actually engaging with the harder question posed by the hypothetical, retreating to defending the easy case of a cow that lived a short and tragic life, being aware of its imminent death and having cow-friends that mourned it. That was not the hypothetical posed and it should be clear to anyone who actually bothered to read what I wrote.

You can't have it both ways. If, as you claim, I did not understand your post it could clearly not be a motte and bailey as well as a misunderstanding.