<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> 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
>>>>>>news:cknro71dq9167eh6ejn3lg0be98q4ivept@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:57:23 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:nn7po71btf5k1bhnsdcn5e4e1j3arvvqr1@4a x.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:33:21 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:52amo71tt4mtrdnhi7snb2o667ock1h7io@ 4ax.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"

That made no sense.


>
>>> 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.

You're not seeing anything significant.

>>>>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.

It does nothing.


>
>>> 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.

It does nothing.