On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:31:51 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> 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
om...
>>>>>> 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.
>
>You keep saying its significant but you can't say how

It allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of positive value. DUH! That
aspect of the situation is significant to eliminationists because they do NOT
want people taking it into consideration because doing so works against the
elimination objective. That is exactly why you are opposed to people taking it
into consideration, and the ONLY reason you have for being opposed to people
taking it into consideration.