<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:38:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> wrote
>>> For years "aras" have been insisting that we give no consideration to
>>> the lives of livestock. Some have taken it to the extent of insisting
>>> that
>>> we must never consider the lives of anything, though those in that
>>> position from time to time also pretend to understand the value of some
>>> lives, for some never explained reason(s). So what are we allowed to
>>> consider? It is okay to consider the lives of any of the following, when
>>> considering human influence on animals:
>>
>>What do you mean by "consider"?
>
> Take into consideration, especially when giving thought to human
> influence on animals.

Taking into consideration is not the same as "being considerate". So you're
not referring to the phrase "being considerate"?

>
>>Be more explicit.
>
> You need to be more capable. You can't do it at all so you claim,
> though you also claim to have been able to in the past. You obviously
> never could, but there is some slight chance that you truly believed
> that you could at one time. This unlearning crap you think you have
> going on is so stupid that it really is funny, btw. Did you know that,
> or do you think it's cool for some reason?

I don't find it funny or cool that you think that transparent equivocations
like the one above is convincing, I find it pathetic.