<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:01:15 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:03:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> I'm aware that the lives of livestock should be given as
>>>>> much or more consideration than their deaths
>>>>
>>>>Why should the deaths of livestock be given any consideration?
>>
>>I asked for *your* opinion ****wit, not the opinions of other people. Why
>>should the deaths of livestock be given any consideration?
>
> Because some of them are of positive value for one thing

Their "deaths" are of positive value? How?

>...one thing
> which you obviously can't understand.

That's true, I don;t understand it, explain it to me.

>>I would have
>>thought that you'd have an answer ready for that one.
>
> You answered it youself years ago. It's still hard to believe you're
> too
> stupid to understand it, but since you are determined to give the
> impression
> that you are, there isn't much point in me explaining it to you every damn
> time you ask about it. Is there?

You keep saying that we ought to give as much consideration to their lives
as to their deaths, why give consideration to their deaths?