On 4/15/2012 12:59 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:09:03 -0700, > wrote:
>
>> <dh@.> wrote
>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, > 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.

It isn't. It isn't necessary for anything, and you can't even define
what it means. It's just meaningless cracker blabber.

What you *want* it to mean is for people to want livestock animals to
exist, but the quality of their lives is no reason to want them to exist.

"Getting to experience life", of any quality, is not a benefit. There
is nothing to consider. If no more livestock ever exist, there is no
moral dimension to it.