On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 11:32:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:20:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 10:34:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>[..]
>>>
>>>>>I know what the dictionary definition of consideration is, I am
>>>>>requiring
>>>>>that you define rigorously exactly what and in what fashion you are
>>>>>demanding we "consider" instead of wildly equivocating between
>>>>>consideration
>>>>>of "existence" and "coming into existence".
>>>>>
>>>>>>>not existing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I consider their lives, and you admittedly can not.
>>>>>
>>>>>Describe that process of consideration in detail, and I don't mean quote
>>>>>the
>>>>>dictionary.
>>>>
>>>> Think about what the animals lives are like, and consider whether
>>>> or not we believe the experiences they have would be more likely
>>>> to give life a positive or a negative value to them.
>>>
>>>That is one meaning of "life", considering the quality of their lives, aka
>>>AW,
>>
>> So do you only have trouble understanding the other meaning that
>> I've pointed out to you?
>
>I have no trouble understanding the meanings of the word life,

You can only understand one.

>and I have no trouble seeing you equivocate among them.

You're only aware of one.

> >>it doesn't imply the LoL.
>>
>> The LoL requires it. There's more to it, but that much alone is more
>> than you'll ever be able to appreciate or be honest enough to acknowledge.
>
>The LoL requires that you look at the lives of lifestock

and also that "their life is a fairly happy one." - Salt

That much alone is more than you'll ever be able to appreciate or be
honest enough to acknowledge, as I have already correctly pointed out.