On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:42:59 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
><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
om...
>>>>>> 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@4 ax.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?
So we have no ethical reason to avoid eating meat if we feel that the
animals have lives of positive value even though you people want everyone to
believe:
"abstaining from meat saves future animals from life" - "Dutch"
>> 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.
I'm pointing out significant things that eliminationists don't want people
to take into consideration because they work against the elimination objective.
>>>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.
It suggests that providing lives of positive value can be considered
ethically equivalent or superior to elimination, which is why you're opposed to
it.
>> 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.
It suggests that providing lives of positive value can be considered
ethically equivalent or superior to elimination, which is why you're opposed to
it.