XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals, alt   
   food.vegan.science   
      
   On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:33:21 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >   
   > wrote in message news:52amo71tt4mtrdnhi7snb2o667ock1h7io@4ax.com...   
   >> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:09:03 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> wrote   
   >>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>>Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal suffering" and   
   >>>>>"appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals".   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    Consideration of suffering is considering a negative aspect.   
   >>>   
   >>>Negative aspects are only ones that require our attention. Positive   
   >>>situations are already just fine as they are.   
   >>>   
   >>>> The other   
   >>>> considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing it all   
   >>>> these   
   >>>> years.   
   >>>   
   >>>It serves no constructive purpose to "consider a positive aspect", and it   
   >>>clearly smacks of self serving rationalization.   
   >>   
   >>    In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist perspective it's a   
   >> necessary   
   >> part of considering the big picture in a realistic way.   
   >   
   >Explain why it is necessary.   
      
       Because it's a significant aspect of the big picture. The fact that you   
   can't recognise much less appreciate the significance is another one of the   
   ways   
   that you reveal yourself.   
      
   >Hint: you can't because it isn't.   
      
       I did. ONLY eliminationists have reason to lie that the lives of billions   
   of   
   animals are not worthy of consideration, because such a lie ONLY benefits the   
   elimination objective and NOTHING ELSE besides the elimination objective.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)