On 4/30/2012 3:28 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:22:07 -0700, > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:42:59 -0700, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>>> 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,
>>>>
>>>> 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

No.


>>>>> 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

They deserve zero consideration. "Getting to experience life" is
meaningless.


>>>>>> 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's not a lie; it's the truth. "Providing life" is ethically meaningless.


>>>>> 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

Not a lie.