On 4/11/2012 10:49 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, > wrote:
>
>>
>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:56:13 -0700, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:26:54 -0700, > 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?

He always has - what he *doesn't* claim is that the animals ought to
exist in the first place.