On 4/23/2012 2:43 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:28:05 -0700, > wrote:
>
>> <dh@.> wrote in message news
>>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:31:51 -0700, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:57:23 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:33:21 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> No it doesn't. Our desire to consume animal products leads to them existing
>> in the first place,
>
> That's what's significant,

It has no moral significance at all.


>> our desire to alleviate their suffering then doing
>> something about it "allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of positive
>> value". You're not adding anything of value by "considering what they get
>> out of it"
>
> ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose considering what happens

The animals don't "get something out of it". "Getting to experience
life" in the first place is meaningless to animals.