of course it is meaningless since the compilation of chemical reactions which would individually attempt to ascribe meaning to it is lost in death.

I agree to a point, but even without death, I think the question of meaning is ill formed.

The only problem I have with they google definition of "life" is that it fails to recognize the dying process which overshadows "life" from the moment "life" of any organism is conceived.

I either don't understand your point, or disagree. Death is a completely separate issue, and something that isn't necessary to life. Death is only common because it is evolutionary advantageous.

Both for things to die naturally which benefit their genes, as well as for the genes of things that kill other things for what they are composed of.

If none of it has meaning, there is no reason to live

The reason to live is because some things are enjoyable.

there is no reason to live and no reason to allow others to live if they are hindering your enjoyments of life....and you feel the risk of retaliation is less that the gains you would have by removing or injuring other people.

Sure, seems to show in human history.

Survival of the fittest is all that matters if life has no meaning, right?

"matters"?

The idea of mass murdering human beings appalls me,

And? An action that isn't immoral can be seen as appalling.

even in the conditions you listed. I see no way that this could possibly be humane.

Humane? That isn't what I'm talking about, not sure why you keep bringing it up?

What I am saying is a ban is a clear line in the sand. By only banning factory farming, people will always be tempted to put profit above animal welfare. This is why animal welfare fails and abolishment is better.

By banning factory farming but allowing small, organic, so called "humane", and free-range farms you introduce a conflict of interest. The animal's welfare versus profit. Abolishment has no such disadvantage.

This is a poorly structured argument. Both "abolition" and "animal welfare" would be laws, and some people will put profit above legal retribution, so they both fail for the same reason. You talk about the welfare of animals like it's something most people care about, they don't and legislation won't change that. This is a question of Profit vs. Law.

Stryker I'm certain you are almost entirely alone on the first claim.

That Vegan, is not an argument.

As for the 2nd the profit motive is at work. People who use cheaper and more inhumane methods will have the advantage.

Odd, it seems you are now supporting my original argument for this debate. Not sure how to respond.

So you find life meaningless. ...can you elaborate?

I understand "how life", and can't find anything pointing to the "why life", that may prove to be an incoherent question.

are you saying life means physics act on matter and nothing more

Yes?

so you believe there really is no such thing as life

These two definitions popped up when I Googled "define:life"

I have no objection to either, and accept the existence of both.

the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

the existence of an individual human being or animal.

and life means nothing at all?

I have a hard time reconciling this question due to phrasing, the closest to an answer I can give is I see no reason to believe that life has any inherent meaning.

Is there a humane way to execute mass numbers of humans? Nope

I disagree. If you have an isolated group of people, all who only have ties within the group, and executed them in such a way to be both painless and with no knowledge of the demise of their group-mates, I see no objection on the grounds of immorality.

it stands to reason there isn't a humane way to slaughter mass number of cows, chickens, pigs, etc.

There are animal products that don't require the killing of an animal. For example, I could raise chicks with the care I would kittens, and once ready, I could collect and consume their savory menstruations without having caused anything to suffer.

I would like to note that I never used the words "humane" or "execute/slaughter", so your objection doesn't really seem aimed at me.

None of the four links provided attempt to claim bees are capable of suffering.

Please try again.

I have yet to encounter a compelling reason to attribute any external meaning to "life". The necessary result of physics acting on matter is good enough for me.

My opposition to animal products are the methods used to obtain them. If worldwide bans were a thing, I would support one on factory farming, but not on animal products in general.

I define immoral as "the intentional causing of unnecessary suffering."

With that in mind, I reject the resolution as insects are incapable of suffering.

I think I would have enjoyed hanging out with her as odd as that may sound, I like her sense of humor, and she is nice. Her drawbacks, mainly misunderstanding an argument or taking it personally doesn't really apply to the people I choose to associate with as I filter what I am willing to discuss based on those I am with.