On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:53:49 -0700, Goo wrote:

>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,
>
>That is *NOT* morally significant in any way

It's worthy of as much or more consideration that their deaths Goo, and of
course it's more from my pov. ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose
consideratoin and appreciation for when decent AW results in lives of positive
value for millions of livestock animals. In fact ONLY eliminationist have reason
to oppose consideration and appreciation for anything and everything that
results in lives of positive value for millions of livestock animals. Your
opposition to appreciating those situations is one of the ways you reveal
yourself, Goob.