5b61bd01   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, misc.rural   
      
   On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 00:32:05 -0700 (PDT), Rupert    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Mar 19, 8:28 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:29:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >On Mar 13, 8:09 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   >> >> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 22:50:40 -0800 (PST), Rupert    
   >> >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> >On Mar 8, 10:32 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   >> >> >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:24:37 -0800 (PST), Rupert    
   >> >> >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >On Mar 6, 11:55 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   >> >> >> >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:03:11 -0800 (PST), Rupert    
   >> >> >> >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> >On Mar 5, 8:22 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 06:33:57 -0800 (PST), Rupert <   
   upertmccal...@yahoo.com>   
   >> >> >> >> >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> >> >Obviously, therefore, you wouldn't have the least idea of how   
   many   
   >> >> >> >> >> >collateral deaths are associated with one serving of tofu.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> >> That's because you don't so you can't tell me.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> >No, my ignorance has no causal bearing on your ignorance.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> Yet you try to blame me for your own inability to comprehend a   
   significant   
   >> >> >> >> difference between lives of positive and negative value.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >No, I don't.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >There is no reason to think I would be unable to comprehend a   
   >> >> >> >definition that actually conveys some information, if you were able   
   to   
   >> >> >> >offer one.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> I did.   
   >>   
   >> >> >No. The definition you offered obviously conveys no information.   
   >>   
   >> >> That's a lie.   
   >>   
   >> >It's not. I sincerely believe it to be true, so it's not a lie. And   
   >> >you obviously haven't got any rational grounds for thinking that I   
   >> >don't sincerely believe it to be true.   
   >>   
   >>     Yes I do, because I don't believe you are stupid enough to believe it.   
   >>   
   >   
   >I'm not talking about what you *believe*, I'm talking about what you   
   >have *rational grounds for believing*. You obviously don't have   
   >*rational grounds* for believing that I don't sincerely believe it to   
   >be true.   
      
       I do because even as mentally restricted as I know that you necessarily   
   ARE,   
   I also do not believe you're stupid enough to believe your claim. You MAY be,   
   but if you were that stupid I don't believe you would have ever been able to   
   learn how to read and write well enough to participate here and tell people you   
   have a PhD.   
      
   >I do sincerely believe it to be true, and in fact, it is   
   >true: the definition you offered obviously conveys no information, and   
   >it's very sad that you can't see that.   
      
       I know what you said it not true, and don't believe you're stupid enough to   
   believe it is.   
      
   >> >You shouldn't accuse people of   
   >> >lying when you have no rational grounds for doing so. It's unethical.   
   >>   
   >>     I don't do it. I don't believe you're stupid enough to believe your   
   claim   
   >> either, meaning I necessarily must believe you're lying, meaning I have very   
   >> rational grounds for accusing you of lying.   
   >>   
   >   
   >No, just because you *believe* something doesn't mean you have   
   >*rational grounds* for believing it. On this occasion you obviously   
   >don't.   
      
       If you were stupid enough to believe your claim I believe you would have to   
   be truly retarded. Are you actually retarded? You are severly mentally   
   restricted, I KNOW that. Anyone who can't appreciate the lives of ANY livestock   
   is necessarily as restricted in that area as it's possible to be. You are in   
   that position. You ARE a person who is as restricted in regards to evaluating   
   whether lifes would be of negative or possitive value for another being as it's   
   possible to get, meaning you're incapable of doing it at all. That's a HUGE   
   restriction that even little children are usually not hindered by, which is why   
   no one in my grade school class had any problem with it. Think about that   
   doctor:   
      
   The distinction that you don't believe means anything, is something that little   
   children in grade school study in class and discuss among themselves. LOL!!! I   
   just had an image of you sitting with a little group of sixth graders who are   
   talking about that distinction, and LOL....you sitting there babbling that you   
   don't think the distinction means anything...LOL...   
      
   >> >> I even later pointed out some of the specific information it   
   >> >> conveys, but apparently you are incapable of comprehending.   
   >>   
   >> >Try again. What information does it convey?   
   >>   
   >>     For one thing the fact that life can have positive value or negative   
   value   
   >> to the individual. For another that the amount of suffering an individual   
   >> experiences has an influence on what that value is. If you can get that far   
   let   
   >> me know and maybe we can consider some of the other information it conveys,   
   and   
   >> if you can figure out any more info it conveys on your own that would be   
   extra   
   >> fun...like watching a child learn to walk...or at least crawl? Let's say   
   crawl,   
   >> so you don't have to worry about falling down too far when you screw up.   
   >>   
   >   
   >Your definition does convey the information that the amount of   
   >suffering in an individual's life has a bearing on whether that life   
   >has positive or negative value, but it doesn't convey any information   
   >whatsoever about the criteria used to determine how much suffering   
   >would be required to make a life of negative value,   
      
       You do that part if you can. That's what we did as children like I tell you   
   each time you cry about things like that.   
      
   >because it   
   >specifies that in a completely circular way.   
      
       Your cognitive dissonance prevents you from being able to think about this   
   topic, which is at least a part of your severe mental restrictions. It's your   
   addiction to the misnomer. You can NOT consider lives of positive value for   
   livestock because then you would have to completely change your position, or go   
   on continuing a position you've learned to feel is inferior. It is, and you   
   would be advancing to rise out of that lowest and necessarily MOST RESTRICTED   
   of   
   ideas that you cling to, but it would change your entire way of thinking. I've   
   pointed all this out to you more than once, and encouraged you to move on   
   countless times. Just get an inch or two off the bottome dude. You don't have   
   to   
   go all the way to appreciating and eating some nice deliscious rare steak from   
   a   
   steer who appeared to have a good life and it's better that he did exist, but   
   at   
   least try to accept the fact that some cattle do have decent lives. Then you   
   could get all the way to some do and some do not, which would bring you up to   
   about the 5th grade level imo. You would have to move UP to reach the 5th grade   
   level.   
   . . .   
   >>     That will ALWAYS be a lie EVERY time you tell it. If you're still   
   telling it   
   >> in five years, it will STILL be a lie in 5 years. And if you quit telling   
   it for   
   >> twenty years and then tell it again it will STILL be a lie when you tell it   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)