On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:56:13 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:26:54 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>>Your "consideration" doesn't benefit any livestock.
>>
>> It does by resulting in options like cage free and free range eggs
>
>That's a lie, consideration of animal suffering,

That's part of it, and is the only part eliminationists want people to take
into consideration. Other people can move on to consider and appreciate the
positive aspect of when things like cage free eggs and welfare regulations
result in lives of positive value for millions of animals.

>followed by demanding and
>buying cage free eggs is what results in options like cage free and free
>range eggs.
>
>Your ...[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals] (an apt acronym) consideration is just you patting yourself on
>the back after the fact. It does NOTHING for animals and that is proven by
>the fact that you can't name a single animal that has ever benefitted from
>it.

People who buy cage free eggs do so because they believe the cage free
method provides decent lives for laying hens. If they didn't they wouldn't spend
the extra money on it, though there are no doubt people who DO believe it but
still don't spend the extra money because they don't care enough that it does.

>> while
>> your anticonsideraion can benefit NOTHING other than the elimination
>> objective.
>
>The so-called "elimination objective" is irrelevant.

Not to everyone.

>...[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals]
>is beyond laughable.

Not to everyone.