On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:12:15 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:54:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:32:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:49:42 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You used to and of course my guess is you still do to whatever
>>>>>>>> extent,
>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>> you do so much that ONLY eliminationists have any decent reason to
>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That is a mistaken conclusion on your part. I oppose some of your
>>>>>>>arguments
>>>>>>>because they're bad arguments, not because I support AR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I sure doubt that of course
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course you would, you love your little pet arguments.
>>>>
>>>> You often do things that ONLY an eliminationist has reason to do, so
>>>> let's
>>>> not forget that part.
>>>
>>>My objection to ...[having appreciation for when decent AW results in lives
>>of positive value for livestock] is that it is a circular,
>>>irrational, self-serving and weak position to assume.
>>
>> ONLY from an eliminationist pov.
>
>No

Yes. We've seen that to be the case.