<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> 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

It's all of it.

>>...[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals]
>>is beyond laughable.
>
> Not to everyone.

Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal suffering" and
"appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals".

If I "consider animal suffering" then I obviously "appreciate lives of
positive value for livestock animals", they are two sides of the same coin.

In other words you have edited away your true agenda, why? Are you ashamed
of it? How do you expect readers to know that want them to take pride that
animals "get to experience life" because your appetite for meat if you hide
behind fake concern for animal welfare?