On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:33:21 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>
><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.

Because it's a significant aspect of the big picture. The fact that you
can't recognise much less appreciate the significance is another one of the ways
that you reveal yourself.

>Hint: you can't because it isn't.

I did. ONLY eliminationists have reason to lie that the lives of billions of
animals are not worthy of consideration, because such a lie ONLY benefits the
elimination objective and NOTHING ELSE besides the elimination objective.