<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:09:03 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>Negative aspects are only ones that require our attention. Positive
>>situations are already just fine as they are.
>>
>>> The other
>>> considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing it all
>>> these
>>> years.
>>
>>It serves no constructive purpose to "consider a positive aspect", and it
>>clearly smacks of self serving rationalization.
>
> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist perspective it's a
> necessary
> part of considering the big picture in a realistic way.

Explain why it is necessary.

Hint: you can't because it isn't. You're full of shit.