<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:28:05 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news
>>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:31:51 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:57:23 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:nn7po71btf5k1bhnsdcn5e4e1j3arvvqr1@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:33:21 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:52amo71tt4mtrdnhi7snb2o667ock1h7io@4a x.com...
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>No it doesn't. Our desire to consume animal products leads to them
>>existing
>>in the first place,
>
> That's what's significant,

Right, so what?

> and refusing to consider that aspect of the
> situation produces the stifled and unrealistic desire to see all livestock
> eliminated which is why ONLY eliminationists have reason to refuse to
> consider
> the big picture, and that is why YOU are opposed to people considering the
> big
> picture. Because considering the big picture works against elimination.

You're not seeing any "big picture", you're seeing a narrow, trumped up
picture.

>>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
> when AW
> is successful

I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I oppose
"considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish
anything.

> and ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose considering when
> animals experience lives of positive value for reasons that are not
> legally
> regulated. DUH!!! You of course oppose both, and ONLY an eliminationist
> has
> reason to do so. Certainly no one who's truly in favor of AW over
> elimination
> has any reason to oppose considering when AW is successful, so your
> opposition
> to considering it is one of the ways you reveal yourself.

I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I oppose
"considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish
anything.

You're proposing that we believe that something bad would happen if
livestock were eliminated, and that bad thing somehow relates to "AW", that
the animals that wouldn't exist would 'miss out' on something, or whatever.
The whole theory is incoherent nonsense.