On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:35:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:24:08 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>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.
>
><blah blah>

Those are just more things you people hate to think about because they don't
favor elimination.