XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, misc.rural   
      
   On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 21:16:09 GMT, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   >On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:35:58 -0100, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:00:38 GMT, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> wrote   
   >>>   
   >>>>    When a being has a life of positive value it is "good" because   
   >>>> we consider things of positive value to be good, Goo.   
   >>>   
   >>>A good life is good *for them*   
   >>   
   >>    Yet when considering them you insanely insist we disregard   
   >>that very significant aspect of the situation.   
   >>   
   >>>provided and because they exist,   
   >>   
   >>    Not because they exist but because we consider things of   
   >>positive value to be good.   
   >   
   >Good *for them* only if they exist.   
      
       Duh, you poor idiot.   
      
   >>If they exist and their life is of negative   
   >>value, people who can make a distinction wouldn't consider the   
   >>lives of negative value to be good FOR THE ANIMALS. You   
   >>can NOT make such a distinction because doing so makes you   
   >>feel dirty, and you think considering the animals themselves is   
   >>"sick".   
   >   
   >No, you don't have it yet.   
      
       That IS it, as I've been pointing out for years.   
      
   >>>better than a shit life,   
   >>   
   >>    Since you can't take good lives into consideration, you can't   
   >>consider the difference between good lives and bad without   
   >>feeling dirty and sick.   
   >>   
   >>>you have not shown it to be *just good, per se*,   
   >>   
   >>    A life of positive value is good because we consider things   
   >>of positive value to be "good". It's fairly simple: good=good   
   >>   
   >>>you can't.   
   >>   
   >>    The purity of your selfishness prevents you from considering   
   >>what's good for beings other than yourself, restricting you from   
   >>being able to appreciate when animals have lives of positive   
   >>value and from making a distinction between when they do   
   >>and when they don't. People who aren't so mentally   
   >>challenged can easily do what is impossible for you.   
   >   
   >Nope, you don't have it yet.   
      
       That IS it, as I've been pointing out for years.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)