> That's pretty far outside the mainstream -- lots of jurisdictions have laws about the humane slaughter of animals.

The vast majority of people don't care at all. But the people who do care care a lot, and make a lot of racket.

> For obvious reasons, people tend not to restrict their moral consideration of pain to those beings that will never die.

I honestly have no idea what you could possibly be talking about. Can you rephrase? Specifically, since the set of "those beings that will never die" has size zero, the sentence seems like a truism.

>> 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.