On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:57:23 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> 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
>
>Repeating that you *think* it is significant is not an explanation. An
>explanation involves giving reasons.
>
>Hint: Don't bother straining your brain trying to think of one, there aren't
>any.

There's the fact that it's a very significant aspect of human influence on
animals.

>>>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.
>
>That was

NOTHING ELSE besides the elimination objective.