XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals, alt   
   food.vegan.science   
      
   On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:57:23 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   > wrote in message news:nn7po71btf5k1bhnsdcn5e4e1j3arvvqr1@4ax.com...   
   >> 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   
   >   
   >Repeating that you *think* it is significant is not an explanation. An   
   >explanation involves giving reasons.   
   >   
   >Hint: Don't bother straining your brain trying to think of one, there aren't   
   >any.   
      
       There's the fact that it's a very significant aspect of human influence on   
   animals.   
      
   >>>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.   
   >   
   >That was   
      
       NOTHING ELSE besides the elimination objective.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)