On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 15:04:19 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 15:27:32 -0800, dh@. wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>No

Yes. We've seen that ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose having
appreciation for when decent AW results in lives of positive value for
livestock. If you think any other group does, then try to explain who they are
and why. Go: