On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><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.

Liar.

>>>...[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".

Consideration of suffering is considering a negative aspect. The other
considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing it all these
years.

>If I "consider animal suffering" then I obviously "appreciate lives of
>positive value for livestock animals"

Are you now claiming to appreciate lives of positive value for livestock
animals? If so, what made you change your mind all of a sudden do you know? Why
doesn't it make you feel dirty any more?