On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:22:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>
><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@4 ax.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.

It's your quote regardless of how stupid it seems to you.

>>>> 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.

The lives of the animlas humans kill deserve as much or more consideration
than their deaths.

>>>>>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.

That's a blatant lie since it does what I pointed out, and we both know 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.
>
>It does nothing.

That's a blatant lie since it does what I pointed out, and we both know it.