****wit David Harrison, convicted felon (cockfighting), lied:


>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 - not to the animals, not to us.
>> It has a *practical* significance to us; it has *NO* significance to the animals.
>> The animals don't care that they exist, they don't "benefit" from coming into existence.
>
> It's worthy of as much or more consideration

It is not worthy of any consideration at all. It's meaningless.