On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:52 -0700, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:30:08 -0700, Dutch lied:
>>
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> I showed that you only want to consider bad things because and only because
>>>> considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals works against the
>>>> elimination objective, Goo.
>>>
>>> Aside from battery hens, *you* only want to consider the good. You're
>>> just as nonobjective as ARAs, in fact you're worse.
>>
>> There's no way that's true, so you're lying blatantly again. Not only are
>> you lying blatantly, but you also have no idea which other lives I might believe
>> are most often of negative value, if any.
>
>So list them.

For one thing there are some who have lives of negative value in every group
including groups where the vast majority of the animals appear to have lives of
positive value, like broiler chickens and grass raised cattle. Most of them
appear to have decent lives, but some don't for whatever particular reasons.
Then in other groups the negative aspect is probably greater than the positive,
like with caged egg producers and probably sows in gestation and farrowing
crates. However I'm also aware that though farrowing crates probably cause life
to be of negative or at least reduced value for the sows, they make life of much
greater value for the young pigs. You people can't appreciate such details, but
some of us are able to.